Vimal Raj v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.2838 of 2022 VIMAL RAJ [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.22 OF 2022 For Petitioner : M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.22 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is dealing with the business of lending containers on rental basis. On 21.06.2021, the petitioner has hired four containers from the defacto complainant agreeing to return the same, on or before 29.09.2021. He also executed an agreement dated 20.09.2021 at the office of the defacto complainant for the above said deal, but, the petitioner did not return the containers as agreed by him. When the defacto complainant asked to return the same, the petitioner demanded him to give 12 lakhs for returning the vehicle and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present case has been registered by the Law Enforcing Agency for the above said crime.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that in the complaint lodged before the respondent police, the defacto complainant made an allegation against this petitioner that he has

not returned the containers as agreed. Now, all the containers are returned to the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police raised an objection stating that the investigation is still pending. However, he admits that the containers which were hired by the petitioner, are now returned to the defacto complainant.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either sides are considered.

6. The respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506 (ii) of IPC. The averments found in the FIR would disclose the fact that during the relevant point of time, the petitioner after receipt of the containers, refused to return the same to the defacto complainant, who is the owner of the said containers. Now the said containers are returned to the defacto complainant and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner for recovering the material object may not be necessary in this case. Hence, taking note of all the above said aspects into consideration, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvallur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: (a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders; (c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 18/02/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, THIRUVALLUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.Nos.2684 & 2625(07/03/2022) CRL OP.2838/2022 Date :18/02/2022 RVR 23/02/2022